NationStates Jolt Archive

Question.

After thousands of deaths, a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions, NO WMDs, and an increase in the threat of terrorism, all of which were predicted by us, the people that were against this war from the beginning...

And after the same people that were against this war from the beginning got called US-haters, anti-Americans, terrorist sympathizers, and every possible kind of libel and slander under the sun, in the run-up to the war, were proven right...

Why is it that there isn't more bragging about it or pointing out that they, like me, were right and rubbing the mistake on the faces of those that insulted them for predicting EXACTLY what happened?

Because at this point, it's just sad.

Question.

After thousands of deaths, a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions, NO WMDs, and an increase in the threat of terrorism, all of which were predicted by us, the people that were against this war from the beginning...

And after the same people that were against this war from the beginning got called US-haters, anti-Americans, terrorist sympathizers, and every possible kind of libel and slander under the sun, in the run-up to the war, were proven right...

Why is it that there isn't more bragging about it or pointing out that they, like me, were right and rubbing the mistake on the faces of those that insulted them for predicting EXACTLY what happened?

There isn't?

There isn't?

Not nearly enough.

Regardless, and please ignore this if you were against the war:

I was right! I told you so! *Does little I-told-you-so dance*

Because at this point, it's just sad.

How so?

please ignore this if you were against the war:


Advice taken.

Advice taken.

Okay. Then DON'T ignore this:

We were right! We told them so! *Invites Hydesland to perform the I-told-you-so dance together.* :D

How so?

The fact that it's gone on for so long is one.

I would have once been on the bandwagon. When the news first surface, there was a point. But, really, now there is just no point because it changed nothing. Sure we felt great because we could sneer at the morons who started it. Now it's just stale.

Question.

After thousands of deaths, a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions, NO WMDs, and an increase in the threat of terrorism, all of which were predicted by us, the people that were against this war from the beginning...

And after the same people that were against this war from the beginning got called US-haters, anti-Americans, terrorist sympathizers, and every possible kind of libel and slander under the sun, in the run-up to the war, were proven right...

Why is it that there isn't more bragging about it or pointing out that they, like me, were right and rubbing the mistake on the faces of those that insulted them for predicting EXACTLY what happened?

more importantly, why are all of those easily fooled dupes/active liars and propagandists that shilled for this monstrosity and were uniformly wrong about everything still given a seat at the table and still dominating the political and media discourses, while me and mine who were right from the beginning still out in the cold. how fucking dysfunctional is our society? why is it that the punishment for helping launch one of the greatest disasters of recent decades is millions of dollars and high profile appointments to government and media positions?

The fact that it's gone on for so long is one.

I would have once been on the bandwagon. When the news first surface, there was a point. But, really, now there is just no point because it changed nothing. Sure we felt great because we could sneer at the morons who started it. Now it's just stale.

I got banned from an irc channel because of it. And, well, I was right. So I'll rub this in the faces of everyone that favored it until I die or they leave, whichever comes first. :p

Question.

After thousands of deaths, a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions, NO WMDs, and an increase in the threat of terrorism, all of which were predicted by us, the people that were against this war from the beginning...

And after the same people that were against this war from the beginning got called US-haters, anti-Americans, terrorist sympathizers, and every possible kind of libel and slander under the sun, in the run-up to the war, were proven right...

Why is it that there isn't more bragging about it or pointing out that they, like me, were right and rubbing the mistake on the faces of those that insulted them for predicting EXACTLY what happened?

Because being right does not undo us going to Iraq.
Now the issue is now that we are there what do we do about it.

I got banned from an irc channel because of it. And, well, I was right. So I'll rub this in the faces of everyone that favored it until I die or they leave, whichever comes first. :p

Chances are you'll die first. You know... before they leave because the Democrats are stuck in a bitter feud and McCain wants to extend the mission up to 100 years...

more importantly, why are all of those easily fooled dupes/active liars and propagandists that shilled for this monstrosity and were uniformly wrong about everything still given a seat at the table and still dominating the political and media discourses, while me and mine who were right from the beginning still out in the cold. how fucking dysfunctional is our society? why is it that the punishment for helping launch one of the greatest disasters of recent decades is millions of dollars and high profile appointments to government and media positions?

That IS more important...

...but I like bragging rights. :p

People have been quietly dancing in their minds, I think. I mean now, the war isn't really something to brag about. It's like if you thought some crazy person was going to kill someone and another person didn't, if they commit a masacre you wouldn't exactally shout "I told you so! I told you so!" now would you?

Why is it that there isn't more bragging about it or pointing out that they, like me, were right and rubbing the mistake on the faces of those that insulted them for predicting EXACTLY what happened?
Because the people that pointed it out in the first place are generally empathetic enough to know not to rejoice in senseless slaughter. Even if we did guess it was going to happen.

That's not to say there shouldn't be accountability. Of course there should. The Republicans, New Labour and every other political organisation worldwide that sponsored this little crusade should be thrown out of positions of power under no uncertain terms. But this isn't something to be happy about: this is something to be freakin' furious about.

Because being right does not undo us going to Iraq.
Now the issue is now that we are there what do we do about it.

What they should do about it is:

Leave. Leave. Leave. Leave. Leave. Leave. Leave. Leave. Leave. Leave. Leave. Leave.

That or find some way to sacrifice Bush's soul in exchange for raising the Iraqis back from the dead and then writing them a big fat check.

People have been quietly dancing in their minds, I think. I mean now, the war isn't really something to brag about. It's like if you thought some crazy person was going to kill someone and another person didn't, if they commit a masacre you wouldn't exactally shout "I told you so! I told you so!" now would you?

If the person called me names and screwed me over for disagreeing with them? I might.

Because the people that pointed it out in the first place are generally empathetic enough to know not to rejoice in senseless slaughter. Even if we did guess it was going to happen.

That's not to say there shouldn't be accountability. Of course there should. The Republicans, New Labour and every other political organisation worldwide that sponsored this little crusade should be thrown out of positions of power under no uncertain terms. But this isn't something to be happy about: this is something to be freakin' furious about.

Oh, make no mistake. I AM furious. Also.

Why is it that there isn't more bragging about it or pointing out that they, like me, were right and rubbing the mistake on the faces of those that insulted them for predicting EXACTLY what happened?
Because it makes you look like an arsehole. There we go.

Because it makes you look like an arsehole. There we go.

Well, I personally am beyond the point of caring about this fact, true as it may be. :p

What are you bragging about, exactly?

I would like to brag about the accomplishments. We got rid of an evil dictator who tried to have a former president assassinated. We kicked major taliban ass. We have lost as many men in several years as died in a minute of fighting in major WWI battles. We have bases in the middle east that we did not have before. We have a new democracy in the Middle East.

Also we have arrested the bombers of our embassy in Nairobi and prevented several terrorist attacks.

Now I know that theoretically it is possible to have an unjust war, this is not one of them. I liken a war against terrorism to the police's neverending war with crime. If someone started shooting in a mall, would you want the police to not go and get the guy or should they say, well we have been fighting crime for over a century so lets just give up?

My husband was recently deployed in Iraq, and I don't know if the word of someone who has actually been there means anything up against our media here in the US..but he says we are making an enormous impact in Iraq for the good. Perhaps they are reporting on another Iraq? Who knows. I for one am a little ashamed of our media. They point out all of the deaths of our soldiers, and yet fail to point out that alot of those deaths can be attributed to accidents, and almost happen more here than there.

Of course, Iraq is not the only country in the world where terrorism is a threat, and the war against it is one I believe we have to fight, before we have another 9/11, no matter WHO you believe was responsible for it, there is no denying it occurred.

What are you bragging about, exactly?

I would like to brag about the accomplishments. We got rid of an evil dictator who tried to have a former president assassinated. We kicked major taliban ass. We have lost as many men in several years as died in a minute of fighting in major WWI battles. We have bases in the middle east that we did not have before. We have a new democracy in the Middle East.

Also we have arrested the bombers of our embassy in Nairobi and prevented several terrorist attacks.

Now I know that theoretically it is possible to have an unjust war, this is not one of them. I liken a war against terrorism to the police's neverending war with crime. If someone started shooting in a mall, would you want the police to not go and get the guy or should they say, well we have been fighting crime for over a century so lets just give up?

The fact that I was right.

There WERE no taliban in Iraq before the war. You created much more terrorists than you killed. And yes, this war is unjust.

And I told you so from the beginning.

My husband was recently deployed in Iraq, and I don't know if the word of someone who has actually been there means anything up against our media here in the US..but he says we are making an enormous impact in Iraq for the good. Perhaps they are reporting on another Iraq? Who knows. I for one am a little ashamed of our media. They point out all of the deaths of our soldiers, and yet fail to point out that alot of those deaths can be attributed to accidents, and almost happen more here than there.

Of course, Iraq is not the only country in the world where terrorism is a threat, and the war against it is one I believe we have to fight, before we have another 9/11, no matter WHO you believe was responsible for it, there is no denying it occurred.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. And your join date has "puppet" written all over it.

Also, I was right, this war harmed your country as well as Iraq.

My husband was recently deployed in Iraq, and I don't know if the word of someone who has actually been there means anything up against our media here in the US..but he says we are making an enormous impact in Iraq for the good.

he is wrong. iraq is in the midst of one of the most massive refugee crises in recent history. 1 in 5 iraqis has been displaced one way or another, and those have disproportionately been the educated. as of sometime last year already, 40% of the middle class had fled the country entirely. and then there is the 4-5% of the prewar population that has died outright as a result of the war...

he is wrong.

Assuming he exists, of course.

The fact that I was right.

There WERE no taliban in Iraq before the war. You created much more terrorists than you killed. And yes, this war is unjust.

And I told you so from the beginning.

So are not you happy that those who would be terrorists are standing up to serve their twisted ideals so that we have more terrorists to kill?

Ok, the taliban thing was no related to Iraq but it is all part of the same theme here of American military "unilateralism". It is like nobody learned the lesson Vietnam.

How is this war unjust? We went to war for like 19 reasons are you saying that none of those reasons were justified?

Why not more bragging on Iraq?

Because many of the people around have nothing to brag about; they were taken in by the initial disinformation. I was, to a certain extent.

Because there were, besides the invalid reasons, several valid reasons for this war. Iraq had not kept to the terms of the peace, for one.

Because more bragging would only play into the "Leave Iraq Now!" morons. When at this point continued US involvement would be a positive.

And because nobody likes a smartass.

People who brag are idiots who need to be ignored.

So are not you happy that those who would be terrorists are standing up to serve their twisted ideals so that we have more terrorists to kill?

Ok, the taliban thing was no related to Iraq but it is all part of the same theme here of American military "unilateralism". It is like nobody learned the lesson Vietnam.

How is this war unjust? We went to war for like 19 reasons are you saying that none of those reasons were justified?

1- The ones "standing up" wouldn't become terrorists if it weren't for the war. I don't know about you, but my definition of making advancements against an enemy is when they become LESS numerous, not MORE.

2- Unilateralism is wrong.

3- The reasons shifted all over the place, and NONE of them materialized.

So, I was right.

Why not more bragging on Iraq?

Because many of the people around have nothing to brag about; they were taken in by the initial disinformation. I was, to a certain extent.

Because there were, besides the invalid reasons, several valid reasons for this war. Iraq had not kept to the terms of the peace, for one.

Because more bragging would only play into the "Leave Iraq Now!" morons. When at this point continued US involvement would be a positive.

And because nobody likes a smartass.

The war was wrong, and yes, you SHOULD leave Iraq now. And no, there were no valid reasons for the war.

I was right.

The war was wrong, and yes, you SHOULD leave Iraq now. And no, there were no valid reasons for the war.

I was right.

You were largely right. You are not right now.

Terrorism in Iraq is decreasing, and the political situation appears to be stabilizing. The new Iraqi military and police still need help to continue those trends.

We wrecked the place. We have some obligation to make repairs.

And the reason I gave before was and is totally valid: the Iraqi government under Saddam HUssein did not hold to the terms of the peace agreement.

The war was wrong, and yes, you SHOULD leave Iraq now. And no, there were no valid reasons for the war.

I was right.

No actually, you are wrong. There were indeed valid reasons for the Iraq War. Anyone with a brain cell who actually read the Resolution of the Use of Force against Iraq would see them.

But then again, we all know jackasses around here can't read.

You were largely right. You are not right now.

Terrorism in Iraq is decreasing, and the political situation appears to be stabilizing. The new Iraqi military and police still need help to continue those trends.

We wrecked the place. We have some obligation to make repairs.

And the reason I gave before was and is totally valid: the Iraqi government under Saddam HUssein did not hold to the terms of the peace agreement.

Leave, cut them all a big fat check, and get them to ACTUALLY stand on their own.

Also, that was NOT NEARLY enough reason for an invasion.

No actually, you are wrong. There were indeed valid reasons for the Iraq War. Anyone with a brain cell who actually read the Resolution of the Use of Force against Iraq would see them.

But then again, we all know jackasses around here can't read.

What reasons, the WMDs that weren't there or the democracy and stability that didn't materialize?

Leave, cut them all a big fat check, and get them to ACTUALLY stand on their own.

Also, that was NOT NEARLY enough reason for an invasion.

Well, the plan is to leave when the Iraqi government is stable enough to do so, which it seemingly isn't currently.

Leave, cut them all a big fat check, and get them to ACTUALLY stand on their own.

Also, that was NOT NEARLY enough reason for an invasion.

According to all tradition and international agreement, violation of a peace agreement is, in itself, a casus belli, a legitimate cause for war.

Question.

After thousands of deaths, a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions, NO WMDs, and an increase in the threat of terrorism, all of which were predicted by us, the people that were against this war from the beginning...

And after the same people that were against this war from the beginning got called US-haters, anti-Americans, terrorist sympathizers, and every possible kind of libel and slander under the sun, in the run-up to the war, were proven right...

Why is it that there isn't more bragging about it or pointing out that they, like me, were right and rubbing the mistake on the faces of those that insulted them for predicting EXACTLY what happened?


Because we're not pricks like they are.

Well, the plan is to leave when the Iraqi government is stable enough to do so, which it seemingly isn't currently.

And it WON'T get stable on its own until they have a timeline to.

No actually, you are wrong. There were indeed valid reasons for the Iraq War. Anyone with a brain cell who actually read the Resolution of the Use of Force against Iraq would see them.

But then again, we all know jackasses around here can't read.

What, exactly, where these valid reasons? Because I dont recall any.


Saddam was a bad guy and easy target. So? If we wanted to stop slaughter, there were much more pressing targets.

Because we're not pricks like they are.

Are you sure? Because after spending 2002 and 2003 being called an US-hater, ending up with my ban from an irc channel, I feel like...

Are you sure? Because after spending 2002 and 2003 being called an US-hater, ending up with my ban from an irc channel, I feel like...


We're better people than they are. I dont know about you, but I dont feel the need to lose the moral high ground.

We're better people than they are. I dont know about you, but I dont feel the need to lose the moral high ground.

I wish I could at least get there TO rub it in. :p

What reasons, the WMDs that weren't there or the democracy and stability that didn't materialize?

*sighs*

You realize that if you bothered to read the Resolution, you would see that the FUCKING WMD ARGUMENT was just part of the overall reasons for going in.

The problem is, two fold. 1) The Administration played this up way to much given the scarcity of evidence and 2) The media also played it up as well, ignoring all the other reasons that have been mentioned.

It seems that people can't get their heads out of their collective asses to actually see that there were other reasons, more important reasons in my opinion, to go into Iraq than the WMD argument.

1- The ones "standing up" wouldn't become terrorists if it weren't for the war. I don't know about you, but my definition of making advancements against an enemy is when they become LESS numerous, not MORE.

2- Unilateralism is wrong.

3- The reasons shifted all over the place, and NONE of them materialized.

So, I was right.

I have no clue what you mean by point three. Did not Congress authorize the use of force in Iraq due to 19 points?

According to all tradition and international agreement, violation of a peace agreement is, in itself, a casus belli, a legitimate cause for war.

People keep forgetting this and those who love to tout international law always seem to overlook this aspect of it. They claim that they never violated the cease-fire.

I have no clue what you mean by point three. Did not Congress authorize the use of force in Iraq due to 19 points?

Just because your congress, under the influence of abject fear, authorized it, doesn't mean you have the right to pursue it. The WORLD exists around the US. So does ethics!

*sighs*

You realize that if you bothered to read the Resolution, you would see that the FUCKING WMD ARGUMENT was just part of the overall reasons for going in.

The problem is, two fold. 1) The Administration played this up way to much given the scarcity of evidence and 2) The media also played it up as well, ignoring all the other reasons that have been mentioned.

It seems that people can't get their heads out of their collective asses to actually see that there were other reasons, more important reasons in my opinion, to go into Iraq than the WMD argument.

So, WHAT were the reasons? WHAT WERE THE REASONS FOR THIS MUCH LOSS OF LIFE?

I have no clue what you mean by point three. Did not Congress authorize the use of force in Iraq due to 19 points?

Forget it G.F.

He does not understand that there were more reasons than just the WMD.

We wrecked the place. We have some obligation to make repairs.

the iraqis themselves do not want us there and think the occupation is a cause of the continued instability. our obligation to them is not the white man's burden.

Forget it G.F.

He does not understand that there were more reasons than just the WMD.

Feel free to list them.

Just because your congress, under the influence of abject fear, authorized it, doesn't mean you have the right to pursue it. The WORLD exists around the US. So does ethics!

Yes. But it is the sovereign right of nations to go to war for whatever issues they feel strongly enough about to take that drastic step. The US had a legitimate casus belli - nothing more was needed, ethically, to take such a step.

So, WHAT were the reasons? WHAT WERE THE REASONS FOR THIS MUCH LOSS OF LIFE?

One reason was already mentioned by Dodo. Violating the peace agreement (aka cease-fire), is grounds for immediate resumption of war.

One reason was already mentioned by Dodo. Violating the peace agreement (aka cease-fire), is grounds for immediate resumption of war.

Doesnt mean we should have.

the iraqis themselves do not want us there and think the occupation is a cause of the continued instability. our obligation to them is not the white man's burden.

Yet, unless I have missed it somewhere, their government has not asked the US to leave.

Were that to happen, I would support an immediate pullout.

Yes. But it is the sovereign right of nations to go to war for whatever issues they feel strongly enough about to take that drastic step. The US had a legitimate casus belli - nothing more was needed, ethically, to take such a step.

WMDs would be a legitimate casus belli IF AND ONLY IF SADDAM USED THEM. And the reason Bush wanked them around was the fact that NO ONE would agree with his rape of an entire nation over the joke of a casus belli he'd present otherwise.

Doesnt mean we should have.

Yea you are probably right but we did and thus, it was all legal. Now we are there and now we must deal with it. Leaving now will not do the Iraqis any good.

One reason was already mentioned by Dodo. Violating the peace agreement (aka cease-fire), is grounds for immediate resumption of war.

So is invading a country along with Russia to make it into a chess board for the Cold War, as it happened in Afghanistan. I'm assuming you don't think 9/11 was a legitimate act of war; Neither do I. So what legitimizes this one?

Yet, unless I have missed it somewhere, their government has not asked the US to leave.

Were that to happen, I would support an immediate pullout.

In reality, makes 2 of us.

Yea you are probably right but we did and thus, it was all legal. Now we are there and now we must deal with it. Leaving now will not do the Iraqis any good.

Given that those in favor of the war were wrong once already, the burden of proof is on you. Because leaving would just as likely deprive the militias of someone to fight against, thus getting them to disband.

Yea you are probably right but we did and thus, it was all legal. Now we are there and now we must deal with it. Leaving now will not do the Iraqis any good.

Without debating whether we should leave or how much we should pull out, I dont think anyone should argue that the war was "illegal".

WMDs would be a legitimate casus belli. And the reason Bush wanked them around was the fact that NO ONE would agree with his rape of an entire nation over the joke of a casus belli he'd present otherwise.

Quite possibly true. I'm not entirely convinced that the Son of a Bush actually knew that Iraq had rid itself of WMDs - do not forget, there is no doubt Saddam Hussein had once possessed such - but he probably should have at least by that point.

Nevertheless, many of the other 19 points remain entirely valid.

Quite possibly true. I'm not entirely convinced that the Son of a Bush actually knew that Iraq had rid itself of WMDs - do not forget, there is no doubt Saddam Hussein had once possessed such - but he probably should have at least by that point.

Nevertheless, many of the other 19 points remain entirely valid.

Which were they again? To fight against terrorism, maybe? The war created several times more terrorists than it killed. Also, I edited the post.

So, WHAT were the reasons? WHAT WERE THE REASONS FOR THIS MUCH LOSS OF LIFE?
"We felt like it and have better guns than you, so fuck off". Can't really argue with that one.

This is the power of the US military and, indeed, that of all of western Europe. So feh.

So is invading a country along with Russia to make it into a chess board for the Cold War, as it happened in Afghanistan. I'm assuming you don't think 9/11 was a legitimate act of war; Neither do I. So what legitimizes this one?

Now I'm confused. Which Afghanistan attack are you now talking about? If we are talking about the 2nd Afghanistan Attack of October 7, 2001 then yea, that was warrented since Bin Laden was there and he was responsible for the attacks and the Taliban did nothing.

As to the legitimacy of this one, violating the cease-fire makes it completely legal to resume hostilities. Remember, we never had a peace treaty with Iraq. If we did, then maybe you'd have a case against this being legit but since we didn't and since Hussein violated it, that makes it completely legit. No amount of spinning is going to change that.

So is invading a country along with Russia to make it into a chess board for the Cold War, as it happened in Afghanistan. I'm assuming you don't think 9/11 was a legitimate act of war; Neither do I. So what legitimizes this one?

That would be their failure to hand over the al-Qaida leadership when we demanded it.

Somewhat less solid than against Iraq, admittedly. But since no one viewed the Taliban as a legitimate government, no one was willing to call the US out on it.

Yet, unless I have missed it somewhere, their government has not asked the US to leave.

governments established under occupation don't matter.

Given that those in favor of the war were wrong once already, the burden of proof is on you. Because leaving would just as likely deprive the militias of someone to fight against, thus getting them to disband.

Or if we leave, they turn their guns on eachother and thus we'll have another Afghanistan on our hands. Or worse, Bosnia.

Without debating whether we should leave or how much we should pull out, I dont think anyone should argue that the war was "illegal".

The problem is, people will try to argue that. Sad as it maybe :(

WMDs would be a legitimate casus belli IF AND ONLY IF SADDAM USED THEM. And the reason Bush wanked them around was the fact that NO ONE would agree with his rape of an entire nation over the joke of a casus belli he'd present otherwise.

No. Iraq agreed to give up ALL WMD in the peace agreement. Possession of them would therefore have been a casus belli.

governments established under occupation don't matter.

I believe Germany and Japan would strongly disagree.

Now I'm confused. Which Afghanistan attack are you now talking about? If we are talking about the 2nd Afghanistan Attack of October 7, 2001 then yea, that was warrented since Bin Laden was there and he was responsible for the attacks and the Taliban did nothing.

As to the legitimacy of this one, violating the cease-fire makes it completely legal to resume hostilities. Remember, we never had a peace treaty with Iraq. If we did, then maybe you'd have a case against this being legit but since we didn't and since Hussein violated it, that makes it completely legit. No amount of spinning is going to change that.

1- I didn't argue it was illegal, I argued it was WRONG.

2- My point was another one: If you argue that for a minor slight the US would have the right to attack Iraq with known civilian loss of life, conversely for other slights Afghanistan would have the right to attack the US with known civilian loss of life, as it did in 9/11. I don't believe that Afghanistan had this right. So I can't believe the US would have the right to attack Iraq with known civilian loss of life either.

1- I didn't argue it was illegal, I argued it was WRONG.

2- My point was another one: If you argue that for a minor slight the US would have the right to attack Iraq with known civilian loss of life, conversely for other slights Afghanistan would have the right to attack the US with known civilian loss of life, as it did in 9/11. I don't believe that Afghanistan had this right. So I can't believe the US would have the right to attack Iraq with known civilian loss of life either.

All wars involve known civillian loss of life.

governments established under occupation don't matter.

Except that we are not occupying Iraq.

No. Iraq agreed to give up ALL WMD in the peace agreement. Possession of them would therefore have been a casus belli.

1- But it didn't have them. So there.

2- Legally, maybe. Legitimately, no.

Except that we are not occupying Iraq.

Now thats debatable.

1- The ones "standing up" wouldn't become terrorists if it weren't for the war. I don't know about you, but my definition of making advancements against an enemy is when they become LESS numerous, not MORE.

2- Unilateralism is wrong.

3- The reasons shifted all over the place, and NONE of them materialized.

So, I was right.

Ok, I have calmed down now and I will respond to all 3 points.

1. Ever since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, faithful Muslims from around the world have risen and taken up arms in the defense of Islam when it was threatened in places like Afghansitan and Bosnia. In those places, it was well and good for them to have done so. Now, some of Muslim people are going to a convenient location near them to attack Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan. They do this not because America targets Muslims for genocide like the Serbs did. They do this not because the damned commies impose atheism or closely monitored state approved versions of religions on their enslaved peoples. They do this because the USA backs Israel.

Israel kicked ass when they were outnumbered by Islamic countries, and this has been a problem of faith to many muslims because instead of the pie in the sky christian approach to wealth and power, muslims supposedly beleive that the faithful are rewarded with wealth and power now. This theory pretty much is in line with the radical calls for Islamic flags flying over the whole world. Whereas, peaceful mainstreamers believe that this will happen by peaceful means such as the eventual conversion of the world, the violent types think that the divine will is expressed by forced conversion and conquest. After all, it worked pretty good in the bad old days maybe what is needed is a return to that old time religion (ie Crusade times).

This is a bit of an oversimplification but still it is a great way for us to separate the bad from the good and a great opportunity to attack them with superior weapons and training and kill them because we have great troops over there doing a great job for us and for the world.

2. Unilateralism can be good or bad. It depends. It is certainly not only bad. When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, that was bad. According to them they were supposedly responding to oppressed Afghanistani students who were somehow the voice of an oppressed majority who wanted communism but were denied it. I think that the USSR was full of BS. This was conquest, pure and simple. Something was similar of the Chinese invasion of Tibet and the German invasion of Poland.

Unilaterlaism is good when you go against what your allies want when your allies have evil motivations. All of the major countries that resisted US action were somehow caught up in the oil for food scandal. They did not want the scandal to be uncovered and we uncovered it. The cries of the oppressed Iraqis were drowned out by their greed for their euros and rubles. I am talking about France, Germany, and Russia. There may have been others.

3. The reasons were clearly outlines at the start. However, media coverage was all over the place. You would be surpirsed how many media audience members actually believes that we went to Iraq solely to get WMDs.

That was never really the case. However, at least one of the points was that Iraq was not cooperating with the UNSCOM investigation of their WMDs as they were required to do by treaty. Before Saddam was killed he apparently confessed that his lack of cooperation was actually patriotic in that he believed tha the could use the media to make the Iranians believe that he had nukes to prevent them from attacking them. When you live next door to Ahmenadjad and have a history of a long and bloody war with his predecessor, it makes sense.

He did not believe that the US was serious. It is a shame when we live in a world where US military is viewed as such a paper tiger that nobody believes that we will use it not even someone who personally led a nation against a coalition led by the US military.

Like Bush or not but he has done a lot to help the world realize that the US means what it says. Bush learned the lessons of Vietnam. When you say you are going to help people you do it and you commit to them. I wish his father had learned the same lesson and helped the Iraqis when they rebelled after the first persian gulf war. We stould by while Saddam moved in and crushed the opposition. We did not truly commit to Vietnam. We did not truly commit to help the Iraqis and the Kurds before. Now, I fear we are buckling to Turkish pressure and abandoning the Kurds again.

All wars involve known civillian loss of life.

True. Which is why wars should be launched over ACTUAL ATTACKS, not perceived slights.

1- But it didn't have them. So there.

2- Legally, maybe. Legitimately, no.

Legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder. I see it as perfectly legitimate.

That is why only legality is important.

Ok, I have calmed down now and I will respond to all 3 points.

1. Ever since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, faithful Muslims from around the world have risen and taken up arms in the defense of Islam when it was threatened in places like Afghansitan and Bosnia. In those places, it was well and good for them to have done so. Now, some of Muslim people are going to a convenient location near them to attack Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan. They do this not because America targets Muslims for genocide like the Serbs did. They do this not because the damned commies impose atheism or closely monitored state approved versions of religions on their enslaved peoples. They do this because the USA backs Israel.

Israel kicked ass when they were outnumbered by Islamic countries, and this has been a problem of faith to many muslims because instead of the pie in the sky christian approach to wealth and power, muslims supposedly beleive that the faithful are rewarded with wealth and power now. This theory pretty much is in line with the radical calls for Islamic flags flying over the whole world. Whereas, peaceful mainstreamers believe that this will happen by peaceful means such as the eventual conversion of the world, the violent types think that the divine will is expressed by forced conversion and conquest. After all, it worked pretty good in the bad old days maybe what is needed is a return to that old time religion (ie Crusade times).

This is a bit of an oversimplification but still it is a great way for us to separate the bad from the good and a great opportunity to attack them with superior weapons and training and kill them because we have great troops over there doing a great job for us and for the world.

2. Unilateralism can be good or bad. It depends. It is certainly not only bad. When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, that was bad. According to them they were supposedly responding to oppressed Afghanistani students who were somehow the voice of an oppressed majority who wanted communism but were denied it. I think that the USSR was full of BS. This was conquest, pure and simple. Something was similar of the Chinese invasion of Tibet and the German invasion of Poland.

Unilaterlaism is good when you go against what your allies want when your allies have evil motivations. All of the major countries that resisted US action were somehow caught up in the oil for food scandal. They did not want the scandal to be uncovered and we uncovered it. The cries of the oppressed Iraqis were drowned out by their greed for their euros and rubles. I am talking about France, Germany, and Russia. There may have been others.

3. The reasons were clearly outlines at the start. However, media coverage was all over the place. You would be surpirsed how many media audience members actually believes that we went to Iraq solely to get WMDs.

That was never really the case. However, at least one of the points was that Iraq was not cooperating with the UNSCOM investigation of their WMDs as they were required to do by treaty. Before Saddam was killed he apparently confessed that his lack of cooperation was actually patriotic in that he believed tha the could use the media to make the Iranians believe that he had nukes to prevent them from attacking them. When you live next door to Ahmenadjad and have a history of a long and bloody war with his predecessor, it makes sense.

He did not believe that the US was serious. It is a shame when we live in a world where US military is viewed as such a paper tiger that nobody believes that we will use it not even someone who personally led a nation against a coalition led by the US military.

Like Bush or not but he has done a lot to help the world realize that the US means what it says. Bush learned the lessons of Vietnam. When you say you are going to help people you do it and you commit to them. I wish his father had learned the same lesson and helped the Iraqis when they rebelled after the first persian gulf war. We stould by while Saddam moved in and crushed the opposition. We did not truly commit to Vietnam. We did not truly commit to help the Iraqis and the Kurds before. Now, I fear we are buckling to Turkish pressure and abandoning the Kurds again.

1- It's a BAD work when you push otherwise-moderate Muslims into fanaticism because your bombs destroyed their houses, your soldiers raped their 9-year old daughter and your tanks demolished their mosques.

2- You did not "free" a country, you destroyed it.

3- It's not a good thing to be a bully. Or would you say Bin Laden did the world a favor by showing it Al Qaeda means what it says?

Question.

After thousands of deaths, a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions, NO WMDs, and an increase in the threat of terrorism, all of which were predicted by us, the people that were against this war from the beginning...

And after the same people that were against this war from the beginning got called US-haters, anti-Americans, terrorist sympathizers, and every possible kind of libel and slander under the sun, in the run-up to the war, were proven right...

Why is it that there isn't more bragging about it or pointing out that they, like me, were right and rubbing the mistake on the faces of those that insulted them for predicting EXACTLY what happened?

Because Iraq was invaded as it had hindered and refused inspection as to the terms of the treaty. So there isn't anything to rub into anyones face. The American congress and senate went along whole heartedly and all involved parties agreed to go. After four years the war has yet to reach one tenth of the initial first day casualty predictions for the allies.

okay, i am still for the war. the media is biased. all they say is that "people got killed". but look at all the positive things we've done. alright, bush-haters! also, both obama and mccain will do good things and bad things for the US. i'm just saying this is not one sided for me.:upyours::mp5::sniper::gundge::):D:p

That is why only legality is important.

If you EVER complain here about a bad law, such as a female friend of yours going to Saudi Arabia and being stoned to death for showing an ankle, I will rub this sentence all over your face.

okay, i am still for the war. the media is biased. all they say is that "people got killed". but look at all the positive things we've done. alright, bush-haters! also, both obama and mccain will do good things and bad things for the US. i'm just saying this is not one sided for me.:upyours::mp5::sniper::gundge::):D:p

1. Dont use so many smilies.
2. There is no evil liberal media slander on the Iraq war. My buddy is a leutenant over there and says that the media doesnt report half the bad shit that goes on. Its impossibe to get an accurate picture, because certian provinces are worse than others.

If you EVER complain here about a bad law, such as a female friend of yours going to Saudi Arabia and being stoned to death for showing an ankle, I will rub this sentence all over your face.

And I will respond, accurately, that context is everything.

Because Iraq was invaded as it had hindered and refused inspection as to the terms of the treaty. So there isn't anything to rub into anyones face. The American congress and senate went along whole heartedly and all involved parties agreed to go. After four years the war has yet to reach one tenth of the initial first day casualty predictions for the allies.

1- The US Congress does not decide the legality of a war. The UN does.

2- The only person that stopped the inspections was BUSH.

3- The death toll in 9/11 was a mere fraction of the one in Hiroshima. Should that be celebrated as well?

And I will respond, accurately, that context is everything.

Which will lead me to point out that context also meant this war was wrong.

1- But it didn't have them. So there.

Except for the fact that they never supplied the proof that they didn't have them. So there!

1- The US Congress does not decide the legality of a war. The UN does.

Sorry man, I gotta break ranks with you here. Actually, no. The UN does not dictate policy to sovereign nations. Only treaties mean jack shit in international law.


Our consitution, the law of our sovereign nation says what makes an armed attack legal. Bush (for once) followed all the rules on this. The UN may not like it, but we acted legally.


Now, that doesnt mean it was a smart of good idea. Just a legal one.

1- The US Congress does not decide the legality of a war. The UN does.

Incorrect. The UN has no such power.

2- The only person that stopped the inspections was BUSH.

Also incorrect. Saddam continuously interfered with the inspection process, sometimes halting it entirely. This was why, when he claimed there were no WMDs, no one believed him.

3- The death toll in 9/11 was a mere fraction of the one in Hiroshima. Should that be celebrated as well?

???

Except for the fact that they never supplied the proof that they didn't have them. So there!

So, if a guy put a gun to your head and asked you to prove that you didn't kill his son, he'd have the right to kill you for failing to PROVE A NEGATIVE?

So, if a guy put a gun to your head and asked you to prove that you didn't kill his son, he'd have the right to kill you for failing to PROVE A NEGATIVE?

Only if you had gone out of your way for five years or more to obfuscate that very issue.

Incorrect. The UN has no such power.



Also incorrect. Saddam continuously interfered with the inspection process, sometimes halting it entirely. This was why, when he claimed there were no WMDs, no one believed him.



???

1- It should. Because now, guess what? It was right to be against the war and all those people are dead nonetheless!

2- Blix said that at a given point Saddam was cooperating.

3- I'm pointing out that it's unreasonable to claim something is going well because "only four thousand people died".

Only if you had gone out of your way for five years or more to obfuscate that very issue.

And when it turns out that he didn't, would the guy blow up his own head, would Corny's dad have the right to blow up the guy's head or would that make it all okay and resurrect Corny? Because if your answer is any of these, I have an irony ready for each.

Let's face it, wars are conducted to make a country more powerful and secure, and not for generous reasons, almost ever.

Iraq is no exception- we went in largely to secure a base in the center of the Middle East, a secure area for oil, and to combat anti-American sentiment. Obviously these were largely not the reported reasons for the war, but with such selfish motives, it's not surprising that the Bush administration made up other causes.

But even while the original (and continuing, more desperate each time) pretexts were a gross violation of every national and international standard for honesty that's been built up since the end of the Cold War, the even worse thing is that the Bush administration didn't even succeed in its corrupt, powerhungry goals. Oil is fantastically more expensive, the American economy is tanking while we spend all of our money to replace tanks lost in Iraq (pun intended), and the US is hated more than ever before. Under the banner of this war, we have raised our debt to $9 trillion (while the Republicans cut taxes on the rich), stretched our military so far that Russia and China can act almost indiscriminately, and made a mockery of our own constitution through torture and excessive executive power.

So yes, I feel I have something to brag about when I opposed a war when the vast majority supported it, and it has so catastrophically failed in every possible way (except in enriching Bush-Cheney cronies, of course). Still, though, it's certainly valid that we should think about the future of how we will extricate ourselves instead of pointing fingers into the past.

1- It should. Because now, guess what? It was right to be against the war and all those people are dead nonetheless!

2- Blix said that at a given point Saddam was cooperating.

3- I'm pointing out that it's unreasonable to claim something is going well because "only four thousand people died".

Blix did say that. He also said, at another point, that Saddam was not doing so. Hussein changed policies quite often.

If one has a choice between killing 4 000 and 40 000 to get a job done, should not there be some reward for choosing the lesser? Especially if that makes it harder to get that job done?

After all, the US could have carpet-bombed Baghdad, blown apart every township and village, smashed the country into the stone age. It would have been easy, and it would have led to an occuption with no real opposition - no people, no problem.

They chose the harder, but more human course.

Because when dancing, you're dancing on the graves of every single Iraqi civilian, American Soldier, Iraqi Soldier, murdered journalist and many, many, many other people.

Actually, I rub it into my friends' faces who support the war whenever the topic comes up. I like to tell them that "I was anti-Bush before it was cool."

but more human course.

The only human course would be NOT GOING TO WAR.

Because when dancing, you're dancing on the graves of every single Iraqi civilian, American Soldier, Iraqi Soldier, murdered journalist and many, many, many other people.

I wouldn't be dancing on their graves if their graves hadn't been put there, would I?

1- The US Congress does not decide the legality of a war. The UN does.

Absolutely not, the UN has no such power.


2- The only person that stopped the inspections was BUSH.

Saddam constantly interfered with, and hindered the inspection process. His ultimate goal remained to threaten the Iranians with the perception that he had WMD's, and if he was able to obfuscate and create doubt, he felt that he could keep them in check. Almost all of the evidence, especially the jailhouse interviews, indicated that Saddam doubted the US would actually move against Iraq, and he felt Iran was a greater threat.

3- The death toll in 9/11 was a mere fraction of the one in Hiroshima. Should that be celebrated as well?

I'm not sure what's going on with this one.

I wouldn't be dancing on their graves if their graves hadn't been put there, would I?

Doesn't change the fact that you are dancing on them. While the Bush administration cannot be credited with must moral quality on this basis, this debases your moral credentials as well.

Saddam constantly interfered with, and hindered the inspection process. His ultimate goal remained to threaten the Iranians with the perception that he had WMD's, and if he was able to obfuscate and create doubt, he felt that he could keep them in check. Almost all of the evidence, especially the jailhouse interviews, indicated that Saddam doubted the US would actually move against Iraq, and he felt Iran was a greater threat.


Which, if you think about it in retrospect, would that have been such a bad thing? He would have kept the Iranians in check. Iran is now the undisputed power in that region.

Absolutely not, the UN has no such power.




Saddam constantly interfered with, and hindered the inspection process. His ultimate goal remained to threaten the Iranians with the perception that he had WMD's, and if he was able to obfuscate and create doubt, he felt that he could keep them in check. Almost all of the evidence, especially the jailhouse interviews, indicated that Saddam doubted the US would actually move against Iraq, and he felt Iran was a greater threat.



I'm not sure what's going on with this one.

1- It should. Because then it might have succeeded at preventing the rape of Iraq.

2- Yet, when the war started, Blix had said the inspections were working.

3- My point being that "only" 4,000 dead is no reason to celebrate.

Doesn't change the fact that you are dancing on them. While the Bush administration cannot be credited with must moral quality on this basis, this debases your moral credentials as well.

At no point in this thread have I claimed to hold, or even seek, the moral high ground. I am pointing out that I was right back then. And indeed, BACK THEN I cared about the moral high ground. But not anymore, not after one attempt at shutting me up by calling me anti-American too many. It's not about the moral high ground now, it's about BEING RIGHT.

Which I was. A fact I will rub in the face of everyone that favored this war.

Which, if you think about it in retrospect, would that have been such a bad thing? He would have kept the Iranians in check. Iran is now the undisputed power in that region.

Absolutely. Had we not invaded Iraq, the radical, rural support in Iran would not have been galvanized in the way it was, to undergird the regime of the Ayatollah's, and offer the support required to put Ahmadinejad into office.

Had we not invaded Iraq, Iran was contained, and threatened. It could have never provided Hiz'bo'allah the firepower to put up a fight with the Israelis, and they could never have challenged the legitimate government of Lebanon.

The Middle East could not have been radicalized in the way it has been since 2003.

The Iraq War has given turd-sandwiches elsewhere, such as Putin or Chavez, the ammunition to impeach the credibility of the US government, and pretend that there is some sort of real threat posed them, even if there is none now.

I mean, the invasion of Iraq has been a major strategic foul-up.

1- It should. Because then it might have succeeded at preventing the rape of Iraq.

No, it shouldn't. In fact, the UN should not have the authority to determine that. And, likely, the UN could not have stopped the Iraq War.

Further, to call the Iraq War the "Rape" of Iraq is pure hyperbole, and is fully inaccurate.

2- Yet, when the war started, Blix had said the inspections were working.

Other analysts felt differently, analysts not inside the US or UK government, including individuals who were opposed to the war.

3- My point being that "only" 4,000 dead is no reason to celebrate.

I don't celebrate there being "only" 4,000 dead American soldiers. It's a fucking tragedy.

At no point in this thread have I claimed to hold, or even seek, the moral high ground. I am pointing out that I was right back then. And indeed, BACK THEN I cared about the moral high ground. But not anymore, not after one attempt at shutting me up by calling me anti-American too many. It's not about the moral high ground now, it's about BEING RIGHT.

Which I was. A fact I will rub in the face of everyone that favored this war.

Then, quite simply, you are an ass.

No, it shouldn't. In fact, the UN should not have the authority to determine that. And, likely, the UN could not have stopped the Iraq War.



Other analysts felt differently, analysts not inside the US or UK government.



I don't celebrate there being "only" 4,000 dead American soldiers. It's a fucking tragedy.

1- The US clearly should not have this authority.

2- Blix was the chief inspector.

3- You don't, but the guy I responded to seemed to. :p

Then, quite simply, you are an ass.

On this issue, probably. But I didn't BEGIN as one.

In most others, I am quite a nice and gentle human being. :p

Which, if you think about it in retrospect, would that have been such a bad thing? He would have kept the Iranians in check. Iran is now the undisputed power in that region.

Not if we start arming the Syrians!

There, balance is restored.

Click Stand;13651374']Not if we start arming the Syrians!

There, balance is restored.

My Deja Vu sense is tingling!

Rubbing it in won't fix the quagmire in Iraqnam. If anything, it lowers you to the level of the Busheviks who gloated in 2004 and pissed sour grapes in 2006. The closest thing to a practical solution would be to pray that Barack Obama gets selected as the candidate and wins the election. Because with either Clinthulhu or McCain- especially McCain, it's virtually 4 More Years of Bushevism, which means a continued occupation of Iraq, continued troop casualties, continued Middle Eastern resentment, continued propaganda boost for radical terrorists, and continued ass-rape field day for the Adminstration's contractor cronies.

Rubbing it in won't fix the quagmire in Iraqnam. If anything, it lowers you to the level of the Busheviks who gloated in 2004 and pissed sour grapes in 2006. The closest thing to a practical solution would be to pray that Barack Obama gets selected as the candidate and wins the election. Because with either Clinthulhu or McCain- especially McCain, it's virtually 4 More Years of Bushevism, which means a continued occupation of Iraq, continued troop casualties, continued Middle Eastern resentment, continued propaganda boost for radical terrorists, and continued ass-rape field day for the Adminstration's contractor cronies.

My pleasure in rubbing it in does not preclude me from doing both. :p

My pleasure in rubbing it in does not preclude me from doing both. :p

Fine. Just don't go around condescending and condemning Busheviks for being gloating tards when you're acting like them.

*shrugs*

The closest thing to a practical solution would be to pray that Barack Obama gets selected as the candidate and wins the election.

No, like they said in Apollo 13, failure is not an option.

Iran is now the undisputed power in that region.
It has the lowest military spending in the region and no friends. Achmujenidad is all mouth and no trousers. Israel and the US are the power in the region.

Fine. Just don't go around condescending and condemning Busheviks for being gloating tards when you're acting like them.

*shrugs*

Oh, I wasn't condemning them for being GLOATING tards. Just for being tards. :p

No, like they said in Apollo 13, failure is not an option.

Failure became the ONLY option the second Bush invaded.

Failure became the ONLY option the second Bush invaded.
Smarmy and yet also wrong. Nice one.

The invasion went really quite well. That the US didn't really plan for what to do afterwards is what made everything go tits-up.

Failure became the ONLY option the second Bush invaded.

While the War was hugely bungled by a foolishly optimistic SecDef and a woefully misjudged post-war strategy, the fact of the matter is that these deficits alone are not insurmountable, just as an early deficit of competent generals did not lose the American Civil War for the North.

Failure was always the Democrats' preferred option. In effect, it became a self-fulfilling prophecy.

While the War was hugely bungled by a foolishly optimistic SecDef and a woefully misjudged post-war strategy, the fact of the matter is that these deficits alone are not insurmountable, just as an early deficit of competent generals did not lose the American Civil War for the North.

Failure was always the Democrats' preferred option. In effect, it became a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Bush is to blame for entering Iraq under false pretenses.

Bush is to blame for its failures.

And this war WAS a failure, it WAS a horrible mistake and it should NEVER have been waged.

Smarmy and yet also wrong. Nice one.

The invasion went really quite well. That the US didn't really plan for what to do afterwards is what made everything go tits-up.

Who was in charge again? Bush.

So yeah, failure was the only option.

Bush is to blame for entering Iraq under false pretenses.

Bush is to blame for its failures.

And this war WAS a failure, it WAS a horrible mistake and it should NEVER have been waged.

That's an awfully simplisic, black-and-white, almost Bushlike way of looking at the world.

Can you name a war fought under true pretenses?

That's an awfully simplisic, black-and-white, almost Bushlike way of looking at the world.

Can you name a war fought under true pretenses?

WW2. Korea. Desert Storm. Taliban Afghanistan.

WW2. Korea. Desert Storm. Taliban Afghanistan.

I'm sorry, I misspoke.

Can you name a war that EVERYONE agrees was fought under true pretenses?

Cause half the nutballs on here think that Desert Storm and Afghanistan are over oil and pipelines.

And would have to use the same logic that "containment works" about Korea.

And the rest would use WWII as an example of our going to war with a country that shouldn't have been our priority (Germany) instead of concentrating fully on the country that actually attacked us (Japan.)

(And then there's the bunch of nutballs who think Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified the WTC anyway...)

See. this is what happens when you lay down with dogs. The fleas bite you, too.

That's an awfully simplisic, black-and-white, almost Bushlike way of looking at the world.

Can you name a war fought under true pretenses?

What Gauthier said.

Plus, because other wars are fought under false pretenses, that makes it okay to fight this one under false pretenses as well?

That's an awfully simplisic, black-and-white, almost Bushlike way of looking at the world.

Can you name a war fought under true pretenses?

The war on crime. They were definitely out to catch criminals. :)

I'm sorry, I misspoke.

Can you name a war that EVERYONE agrees was fought under true pretenses?

Cause half the nutballs on here think that Desert Storm and Afghanistan are over oil and pipelines.

And would have to use the same logic that "containment works" about Korea.

And the rest would use WWII as an example of our going to war with a country that shouldn't have been our priority (Germany) instead of concentrating fully on the country that actually attacked us (Japan.)

(And then there's the bunch of nutballs who think Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified the WTC anyway...)

See. this is what happens when you lay down with dogs. The fleas bite you, too.

Even for these wars, there was more than 10% of the world behind them at the PEAK of their support.

Question.

After thousands of deaths, a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions, NO WMDs, and an increase in the threat of terrorism, all of which were predicted by us, the people that were against this war from the beginning...

And after the same people that were against this war from the beginning got called US-haters, anti-Americans, terrorist sympathizers, and every possible kind of libel and slander under the sun, in the run-up to the war, were proven right...

Why is it that there isn't more bragging about it or pointing out that they, like me, were right and rubbing the mistake on the faces of those that insulted them for predicting EXACTLY what happened?


Because there are too few of you who were actually saying this stuff before the war. Contrary to what many people say, most people thought this would be a quick in quick out thing and I admit I am guilty of that.
Now people don't brag because it looks like the military leaders are putting their act back together and might just win this thing.

What Gauthier said.

Plus, because other wars are fought under false pretenses, that makes it okay to fight this one under false pretenses as well?

It highly diminishes the central thesis of your argument if you condemn one war and celebrate another, when the pretences for all are pretty much equally false. It points to petty partisanship rather than a reasoned argument.

Who was in charge again? Bush.

So yeah, failure was the only option.
...

I was unaware that Bush meticulously planned the whole thing. You had extremely pish generals in charge at the start. This is slowly being remedied, and over the next 20-40 years, the situation will become pretty alright.

"That's an awfully simplisic, black-and-white, almost Bushlike way of looking at the world.

Can you name a war fought under true pretenses?"

The USA in World War II. Japan attacked us so we responded. Germany and Italy declared war on us so we responded.

Even for these wars, there was more than 10% of the world behind them at the PEAK of their support.

That logic would make the American Revolution (Indeed, any liberation movement) a bad idea.

Also, the popularity of an idea rarely has any relationship to its validity. In fact, most often when there is a relationship, it is an inverse relationship.

It highly diminishes the central thesis of your argument if you condemn one war and celebrate another, when the pretences for all are pretty much equally false. It points to petty partisanship rather than a reasoned argument.

That's because unlike the wars Gauthier quoted, Iraq had LITERALLY no reason.

That logic would make the American Revolution (Indeed, any liberation movement) a bad idea.

Also, the popularity of an idea rarely has any relationship to its validity. In fact, most often when there is a relationship, it is an inverse relationship.

QED the popularity of the Iraq war among Americans when it BEGAN, is it not?

QED the popularity of the Iraq war among Americans when it BEGAN, is it not?
Shittiest... QED... ever...

Shittiest... QED... ever...

In that it's untrue or in that it's a BAD truth?

I myself support the war, not because I agree with where we're fighting but with our soldiers.

In my opinion, we shoulda stayed in Afghanistan where we originally planned to be instead of going to Iraq for some stupid ass "WMDs" that weren't there.

He went from getting Bin Laden in Afghanistan to getting WMDs in Iraq, to stopping Saddam Hussein, to stopping the terrorists in Iraq who weren't there before.

Either Bush is half retarded, has ADD, or both.

In that it's untrue or in that it's a BAD truth?
"It was popular and hence a rubbish idea"

Such a bullshit claim.

"It was popular and hence a rubbish idea"

Such a bullshit claim.

That was a claim HE was making. The QED I used to turn a phrase against him.

I myself support the war, not because I agree with where we're fighting but with our soldiers.

In my opinion, we shoulda stayed in Afghanistan where we originally planned to be instead of going to Iraq for some stupid ass "WMDs" that weren't there.

He went from getting Bin Laden in Afghanistan to getting WMDs in Iraq, to stopping Saddam Hussein, to stopping the terrorists in Iraq who weren't there before.

Either Bush is half retarded, has ADD, or both.

The best way to support the soldiers is by supporting their exit.

That was a claim HE was making. The QED I used to turn a phrase against him.

The claim I made was that the relationship is rare, and when it is accurate, is often inverse.

Your so-called QED does not, in fact, support that conclusion, unless you can D that the popularity of that decision was necessarily one of the rare instances. Which you can't.

The best way to support the soldiers is by supporting their exit.
And the best way to support the Iraqi civilians who don't get paid and given scholarships to get shot and and killed on a much larger scale is to support keeping troops in Iraq.

The best way to support the soldiers is by supporting their exit.

It's the rare soldier I've met (and I've associated with my share) who would unequivocally support that statement. Especially since it obviously doesn't apply to soldiers or warfare in general.

A soldier would be more likely to say that the best way to support him is to make his victory as easy and quick as possible.

The claim I made was that the relationship is rare, and when it is accurate, is often inverse.

Your so-called QED does not, in fact, support that conclusion, unless you can D that the popularity of that decision was necessarily one of the rare instances. Which you can't.

The majority of Americans supported the war and was wrong to do so at the time. That was my point.

The majority of Americans supported the war and was wrong to do so at the time. That was my point.
And about 90% of British people were against... what does this actually change?

It's the rare soldier I've met (and I've associated with my share) who would unequivocally support that statement. Especially since it obviously doesn't apply to soldiers or warfare in general.

A soldier would be more likely to say that the best way to support him is to make his victory as easy and quick as possible.

That ship sailed when the invasion began.

The best way to support the soldiers is by supporting their exit.

You do realize that's an awfully ignorant thing to say don't you. In case you don't, I'll enlighten you.

Our military does not draft soldiers. That means that our military is entirely voluntary. That also means that everyone who enlists wants to be there.

As for those who just joined for the money and end up in Iraq, they realize that they're stupid for doing that.

The best way to support soldiers is by letting them fight their war and for politicians and whatnot, is to fund them so they can do their job right.

And about 90% of British people were against... what does this actually change?

Well, the British were right.

So was I.

You do realize that's an awfully ignorant thing to say don't you. In case you don't, I'll enlighten you.

Our military does not draft soldiers. That means that our military is entirely voluntary. That also means that everyone who enlists wants to be there.

As for those who just joined for the money and end up in Iraq, they realize that they're stupid for doing that.

The best way to support soldiers is by letting them fight their war and for politicians and whatnot, is to fund them so they can do their job right.

So the best way to support the soldiers is exposing them to pointless danger?

Well, the British were right.

So was I.
A bit smug for a counterinsurgency that's only been around for 5 years, no?

Northern Ireland took 35 years from the start of the Troubles to resolve. That's the scale we're looking at for Iraq, and probably more like 50 for Afghanistan.

So are not you happy that those who would be terrorists are standing up to serve their twisted ideals so that we have more terrorists to kill?

Why aren't we killing all Americans on the basis that they might become serial killers?

Answer that in a way that cannot be used to debunk your argument.

So the best way to support the soldiers is exposing them to pointless danger?
About 140,000 soldiers and supporting staff are exposed to pointless danger.

Pull them out before the Iraqis get their army sorted and you have tens of millions of Iraqis exposed to pointless danger. We saw only this month that the Iraqi Army is completely inept at the moment. Do you really want even more blood on your hands?

A bit smug for a counterinsurgency that's only been around for 5 years, no?

Northern Ireland took 35 years from the start of the Troubles to resolve. That's the scale we're looking at for Iraq, and probably more like 50 for Afghanistan.

And you're surprised that people find it to be a mistake???

And you're surprised that people find it to be a mistake???
Not really a mistake considering the size of the oil deposits there.

And you're surprised that people find it to be a mistake???

I find your inconsistent reasoning to be a greater mistake.

Pull them out before the Iraqis get their army sorted and you have tens of millions of Iraqis exposed to pointless danger. We saw only this month that the Iraqi Army is completely inept at the moment. Do you really want even more blood on your hands?

MINE?

THE USA STARTED THIS WAR, UNDER BUSH, OVER MY, A BRAZILIAN, AND THE WORLD'S OBJECTIONS, AND YOU HAVE THE GALL TO SAY THAT THAT, OR ANY AMOUNT OF, BLOOD IS IN MY HANDS?

THE BLOOD IS IN THE HANDS OF THOSE THAT STARTED THE WAR, AS WELL AS THOSE THAT SUPPORT IT! AND ANY BLOODLETTING CAUSED BY LEAVING IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY AS WELL, BECAUSE YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Not really a mistake considering the size of the oil deposits there.

Ah, so it WAS blood for oil.

Why aren't we killing all Americans on the basis that they might become serial killers?

Answer that in a way that cannot be used to debunk your argument.

Nice!

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. And your join date has "puppet" written all over it.

Also, I was right, this war harmed your country as well as Iraq.



War never does any country any good at all. Unfortunately, we live in an age where disinformation has reached it's pinnacle of perfection. Perhaps you are right, and I should dismiss my husband's word. But since I have utter faith in his sense of honor, I think I'll be trusting him for what it is worth.

As far as my join date..what does that have to do with me being a new member and stumbling over this post? I am sorry, I have been verbally abused, spat at, and even physically threatened for being a soldier's wife. Mere words are not going to make me back away from my position.

You have as much evidence to back up your statements as I do. Unless of course, I am mistaken, and you happen to reside in Iraq. Perhaps if we all stopped squabbling over who MIGHT be right..we would open our eyes and start demanding PROOF of all this information we are being handed.

It could very well be that BOTH sides are getting a watered down version of the truth.

In any case, sitting back and doing nothing only constitutes action to be taken later. I wonder what might have happened if we had involved ourselves when Hitler came to power, just a little sooner than we did? But then again, this could all just be a mistake. Since I cannot put on the uniform, I shall not judge the fine men and women of the United States military for doing what they believe is right.

Assuming he exists, of course.

Oh I know he exists, it's my father we're talking about.

I do have two questions for you Heikoku,

Do you simply believe everything that the media tells you, and puppets you into thinking that a stable iraq is bad?

From the sounds of things, you feel that the iraqi war is illegal in every right. Why hasn't the UN amass an army to throw us out... or why didn't the french send troops to protect and defend Saddam in 2003?

Because there are too few of you who were actually saying this stuff before the war.

largest
protest
in
history

sorry you missed it.

MINE?

THE USA STARTED THIS WAR, UNDER BUSH, OVER MY, A BRAZILIAN, AND THE WORLD'S OBJECTIONS, AND YOU HAVE THE GALL TO SAY THAT THAT, OR ANY AMOUNT OF, BLOOD IS IN MY HANDS?

THE BLOOD IS IN THE HANDS OF THOSE THAT STARTED THE WAR, AS WELL AS THOSE THAT SUPPORT IT! AND ANY BLOODLETTING CAUSED BY LEAVING IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY AS WELL, BECAUSE YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE!
The blood of those killed due to a troop pullout is on those who are in favour of a pullout as much as the blood of those killed when the US and its allies invaded is on the hands of those who wanted to invade in the first place.
Ah, so it WAS blood for oil.
Yes. I don't dispute this, and indeed have been against the war from the start, I just think that leaving right now would be a terrible idea.

Oh I know he exists, it's my father we're talking about.

I do have two questions for you Heikoku,

Do you simply believe everything that the media tells you, and puppets you into thinking that a stable iraq is bad?

From the sounds of things, you feel that the iraqi war is illegal in every right. Why hasn't the UN amass an army to throw us out... or why didn't the french send troops to protect and defend Saddam in 2003?

1- I KNEW the war was a mistake before it started. Back when people who were against it were slandered, remember?

2- It's illegal, and it's wrong, but unfortunately, that chimp that currently resides in the White House controls a big army.

3- You and your pseudo-mom are puppets. Whose is the question.

MINE?

THE USA STARTED THIS WAR, UNDER BUSH, OVER MY, A BRAZILIAN, AND THE WORLD'S OBJECTIONS, AND YOU HAVE THE GALL TO SAY THAT THAT, OR ANY AMOUNT OF, BLOOD IS IN MY HANDS?

THE BLOOD IS IN THE HANDS OF THOSE THAT STARTED THE WAR, AS WELL AS THOSE THAT SUPPORT IT! AND ANY BLOODLETTING CAUSED BY LEAVING IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY AS WELL, BECAUSE YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE!

You must have forgot about congress authorization to go to war in the first place. Your forgetting a lot.

You must have forgot about congress authorization to go to war in the first place. Your forgetting a lot.
Eh, I don't see where he said this didn't happen?

War never does any country any good at all. Unfortunately, we live in an age where disinformation has reached it's pinnacle of perfection. Perhaps you are right, and I should dismiss my husband's word. But since I have utter faith in his sense of honor, I think I'll be trusting him for what it is worth.

As far as my join date..what does that have to do with me being a new member and stumbling over this post? I am sorry, I have been verbally abused, spat at, and even physically threatened for being a soldier's wife. Mere words are not going to make me back away from my position.

You have as much evidence to back up your statements as I do. Unless of course, I am mistaken, and you happen to reside in Iraq. Perhaps if we all stopped squabbling over who MIGHT be right..we would open our eyes and start demanding PROOF of all this information we are being handed.

It could very well be that BOTH sides are getting a watered down version of the truth.

In any case, sitting back and doing nothing only constitutes action to be taken later. I wonder what might have happened if we had involved ourselves when Hitler came to power, just a little sooner than we did? But then again, this could all just be a mistake. Since I cannot put on the uniform, I shall not judge the fine men and women of the United States military for doing what they believe is right.

My pseudo-lady, your husband does not exist. The Internet accepts just about any claim, including "I am a mid-wife that has a husband in Iraq". And Saddam was not invading the Middle East. Indeed, Iraq was stable BEFORE the war. As for your shoddy attempt to paint me as against the soldiers due to being against the war, I will not take your faux gender into account when responding to them, so allow me some lack of chivalry here and I will point out that they are very, VERY wrong.

Furthermore, there is no recent history of mistreatment of soldiers or of their spouses. So, yeah, your claims do not hold water.

As for evidence that the war was a mistake, countless dead, trillions in debt, a country destroyed.

Your witness.

1- The US Congress does not decide the legality of a war. The UN does.

Actually, no they don't.

2- The only person that stopped the inspections was BUSH.

And Britain and Spain.

3- The death toll in 9/11 was a mere fraction of the one in Hiroshima. Should that be celebrated as well?

:rolleyes:

I think going into Iraq was a good idea just executed... poorly. I mean seriously when you think about it these people have been killing each other for thousands of years, no real way to totally "win" here. We should have just finished the little revolution out. Let the Iranians choose what they want to do. And plop a permanent military base next to biggest oil reserve we can find.

1- I KNEW the war was a mistake before it started. Back when people who were against it were slandered, remember?

2- It's illegal, and it's wrong, but unfortunately, that chimp that currently resides in the White House controls a big army.

3- You and your pseudo-mom are puppets. Whose is the question.

Puppets, funny for you to stay that. The sounds of it, your also a puppet of the anti-war organizations also, we're in the same boat. Unlike you, I listen to the soldiers who come back from iraq, and the news from them is sounding better and better. I'll take their word over yours.

please, take this to the militaryphotos.net forums, and I would like to see you get far there.

Plus, nothing is illegal till you get caught. How is it illegal when Bush haven't been caught yet.

You must have forgot about congress authorization to go to war in the first place. Your forgetting a lot.

What, that the Congress was cheated and intimidated into supporting this useless bloodshed I'm well-aware. Plus the post wasn't even about that, so what's your point, puppet #2?

Puppets, funny for you to stay that. The sounds of it, your also a puppet of the anti-war organizations also, we're in the same boat. Unlike you, I listen to the soldiers who come back from iraq, and the news from them is sounding better and better. I'll take their word over yours.

please, take this to the militaryphotos.net forums, and I would like to see you get far there.

Are you feigning ignorance of what a puppet is in forums? Let me enlighten you: It's when a person creates extra accounts with different names to pretend that their positions are more popular than they are.

Also, the only way Iraq will get better from the invasion is if EVERY CIVILIAN KILLED RESURRECTS!

My pseudo-lady, your husband does not exist. The Internet accepts just about any claim, including "I am a mid-wife that has a husband in Iraq". And Saddam was not invading the Middle East. Indeed, Iraq was stable BEFORE the war. As for your shoddy attempt to paint me as against the soldiers due to being against the war, I will not take your faux gender into account when responding to them, so allow me some lack of chivalry here and I will point out that they are very, VERY wrong.

Furthermore, there is no recent history of mistreatment of soldiers or of their spouses. So, yeah, your claims do not hold water.

As for evidence that the war was a mistake, countless dead, trillions in debt, a country destroyed.

Your witness.

Do you have proof that he doesn't exist, because I know for a fact that I exist.

If you want to do a search for him, please search for PANDY, JAMES R at military.com, buddy finder. Use me as your search, JASON PANDY, employer as Chase Bank

Do you have proof that he doesn't exist, because I know for a fact that I exist.

If you want to do a search for him, please search for PANDY, JAMES R at military.com, buddy finder. Use me as your search, JASON PANDY, employer as Chase Bank

That means squat. There are several ways through which you can bolster claims with pseudo-evidence, including but not limited to knowing someone and using their names.

The only human course would be NOT GOING TO WAR.

Look how that often ends up!

Are you feigning ignorance of what a puppet is in forums? Let me enlighten you: It's when a person creates extra accounts with different names to pretend that their positions are more popular than they are.

Also, the only way Iraq will get better from the invasion is if EVERY CIVILIAN KILLED RESURRECTS!

Hahaha, I don't take time out of my day to make extra accounts. I ain't gonna brother talking to a teenager, or someone who acts like a teenager.

Heikoku, you simply don't respect the lives this war took, and feel that your views is any better then the one I hold. I respect your views, but I don't agree with them. You should learn to respect for other people's views, and you might get ahead in life. You might do some instead of posting pointlessly on a thread.

As far as I know, you don't even respect the civilian deaths from iraq, let alone the military itself, and drag their memory into the ground. Your damn near as bad as the terrorist that flew the planes into the towers.

I ask the mods to close this tread out of the respect to the service members and civilians who suffered because of this war.

Look how that often ends up!

How, Corny? With a country that's not falling apart after enough bloodletting to taint the entire Mississipi?

1- It should. Because then it might have succeeded at preventing the rape of Iraq.

That's a spit in the face of the atrocity at Nanking.

Hahaha, I don't take time out of my day to make extra accounts. I ain't gonna brother talking to a teenager, or someone who acts like a teenager.

Heikoku, you simply don't respect the lives this war took, and feel that your views is any better then the one I hold. I respect your views, but I don't agree with them. You should learn to respect for other people's views.

As far as I know, you don't even respect the civilian deaths from iraq, let alone the military itself, and drag their memory into the ground. Your damn near as bad as the terrorist that flew the planes into the towers.

I ask the mods to close this tread out of the respect to the service members and civilians who suffered because of this war.

Ah, I was wondering how long until you compared me to a terrorist for being against this war and daring to disagree with you. I'm against this war BECAUSE the civilians died. You were in favor of it regardless of their deaths. Who respects them more?

double post

Question.

After thousands of deaths, a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions, NO WMDs, and an increase in the threat of terrorism, all of which were predicted by us, the people that were against this war from the beginning...

And after the same people that were against this war from the beginning got called US-haters, anti-Americans, terrorist sympathizers, and every possible kind of libel and slander under the sun, in the run-up to the war, were proven right...

Why is it that there isn't more bragging about it or pointing out that they, like me, were right and rubbing the mistake on the faces of those that insulted them for predicting EXACTLY what happened?
In my case, I've been saying "I told you so" a lot less than the situation warrants because the situation is so depressing, disgusting, and horrifying, it takes all the fun out of being proven right. I really did want to be wrong -- I really did -- but I knew I wasn't. :(

in about 20 years of rule Saddam is estimated to have killed 1 million people. or about 50,000 a year.
source:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID=0F2658E9-6A5E-45E9-ACE5-982C0CA355A1

in five years of war there have been an estimated 100,000 people killed or
20,000 per year.
source:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

It seems to me the Iraqis didn't have such a bad deal out of it. My concern is about how bad will things get when we leave.

1- The US clearly should not have this authority.

Brazil should not have this authority either. But wait, we are two independent states so we do. Figure that one out.

That's a spit in the face of the atrocity at Nanking.

My point may have been lost in the thread, but it was exactly AGAINST the notion that a certain loss of life is acceptable because it's smaller than others.

in about 20 years of rule Saddam is estimated to have killed 1 million people. or about 50,000 a year.
source:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID=0F2658E9-6A5E-45E9-ACE5-982C0CA355A1

in five years of war there have been an estimated 100,000 people killed or
20,000 per year.
source:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

It seems to me the Iraqis didn't have such a bad deal out of it. My concern is about what we have exposed Us troops to.
You're counting in total deaths with only civilian deaths.

Brazil should not have this authority either. But wait, we are two independent states so we do. Figure that one out.

Brazil has a self-defense clause, a clause in its constitution that forbids unprovoked aggression. WE are more responsible than YOU in this point.

Failure became the ONLY option the second Bush invaded.

Then why are we currently succeeding if Failure became our only option? Oh yea...I forgot. You don't know what you're talking about.

in about 20 years of rule Saddam is estimated to have killed 1 million people. or about 50,000 a year.
source:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID=0F2658E9-6A5E-45E9-ACE5-982C0CA355A1

in five years of war there have been an estimated 100,000 people killed or
20,000 per year.
source:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

It seems to me the Iraqis didn't have such a bad deal out of it. My concern is about how bad will things get when we leave.

Other estimates have the number at 600,000 dead Iraqis.

Then why are we currently succeeding if Failure became our only option? Oh yea...I forgot. You don't know what you're talking about.

A minor lull in terror after 5 years is not success.

Are you that unbelievably idiotic to think that we do not respect the civilians? WE'RE AT WAR. CIVILIANS DIE.

You act as if we intend to kill civilians; like our soldiers walk the streets of Iraq randomly killing civilians because we just don't like them.

How can you even possibly throw accusations of this pseudo-bullshit around? What proof do you have that there are puppets, and that comments made are pretty much BS?

Are you so much of a sore, pathetic fool that you either accuse people of lying or just try to counter argue with pointless remarks that several people know aren't true?

Check your facts, and yourself pal.

Are you that unbelievably idiotic to think that we do not respect the civilians? WE'RE AT WAR. CIVILIANS DIE.

You act as if we intend to kill civilians; like our soldiers walk the streets of Iraq randomly killing civilians because we just don't like them.

How can you even possibly throw accusations of this pseudo-bullshit around? What proof do you have that there are puppets, and that comments made are pretty much BS?

Are you so much of a sore, pathetic fool that you either accuse people of lying or just try to counter argue with pointless remarks that several people know aren't true?

Check your facts, and yourself pal.

YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE GOTTEN INTO THIS WAR! THAT IS MY POINT!

And your shoddy attempts at putting words into my mouth reveal how weak your argument is and how right about this war I always was!

I'm not going to pretend that I did more than just glance at snippets of the posts on this thread, but as a Gulf War veteran myself, from the 1st go-'round, I will tell you this: That everyone that I served with, down to the last man, KNEW that we would be back into the Persian Gulf before a decade had passed. Militarily speaking, you don't leave that many unresolved issues, and that many people hanging in the breeze, and expect things to just dry up and blow away. We (Gulf War 1 Veterans) just wish it hadn't been under this crop of ham-handed simpletons.
This is my 1st, last and only post on this extremely, personally, painful subject, peace, peoples.
C.

WW2. Korea. Desert Storm. Taliban Afghanistan.

WWII: Started under false pretenses by the Germans

Desert Storm: Same as above!

Afghanistan is about the only one on this list to pass muster.

WWII: Started under false pretenses by the Germans

Desert Storm: Same as above!

Afghanistan is about the only one on this list to pass muster.

And people supported the efforts AGAINST the Germans in WWII and the Iraqis in Desert Storm.

That ship sailed when the invasion began.

You realize that this is a totally disillusioned statement you just made.

You realize that this is a totally disillusioned statement you just made.

What? Because the war was managed by such competent people?

YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE GOTTEN INTO THIS WAR! THAT IS MY POINT!

And your shoddy attempts at putting words into my mouth reveal how weak your argument is and how right about this war I always was!

That's where you're wrong. We were absolutely right in going to war. I do admit that we went about it the wrong way, as noted in my first post.

What words did I put into your mouth? All I did was recap the comments that you made.

And would have to use the same logic that "containment works" about Korea.

.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the UN mandate that we go into Korea?

That's where you're wrong. We were absolutely right in going to war. I do admit that we went about it the wrong way, as noted in my first post.

What words did I put into your mouth? All I did was recap the comments that you made.

No, you were wrong in invading Iraq. There were no WMDs, no aggression, no reason to invade.

And you say that I act as if the soldiers want dead civilians. I don't.

Dude. History is proving the Bush Administration and their worshippers wrong about Iraq. Just leave it at that. With this constant insistence on gloating and making a big deal out of it you're turning into the obnoxious lovechild of Fass and UnitedStatesofAmerica-.

Chill.

2- It's illegal, and it's wrong, but unfortunately, that chimp that currently resides in the White House controls a big army.

Sorry but the war was not illegal under International Law. SOmething I guess you missed in this entire argument of yours.

3- You and your pseudo-mom are puppets. Whose is the question.

oh brother :rolleyes:

Dude. History is proving the Bush Administration and their worshippers wrong about Iraq. Just leave it at that. With this constant insistence on gloating and making a big deal out of it you're turning into the obnoxious lovechild of Fass and UnitedStatesofAmerica-.

Chill.

Well, it sorta is a big deal.

Plus, I owe all the people that support this war as much for the CRAP I had to put up with during its run-up.

I was going to respond specifically to posts I disagreed with, but Corneliu and GF and a few others have posted such jaw dropping BS that I just gave up trying to pick things to attack. I mean, I really feel like I've traveled back in time to the first year of this war, with this stale old, heavily debunked propaganda being thrown around, as if nothing else has happened in all this time -- or else I feel like I'm reading posts by Dick Cheney himself. :rolleyes:

Here's my view on the matter:

1) The justifications claimed do not in fact justify anything. This includes the claim that Saddam violated the cease fire agreement. Why? Because it was a UN agreement, not a US agreement, therefore the US had no legal standing to resume fighting without UN authorization, which the US most decidedly did not have. So that argument is BS.

2) Congress authorizing force does not make the war justified for several reasons, including: (a) the Congress was in the wrong to give that authorization in the first place; (b) the information on which the Congress made its decision was bogus, so the action that was being authorized was still without justification -- iow, authorization did not create justification, or "they said I could do it" is no excuse; (c) authorization to use force is not authorization to commit war crimes and war profiteering, so no matter what Congress authorized, they were not authorizing what Bush & Co actually did.

3) I am proud to say that I am one of those people who say the war was illegal, and I base that opinion on comparison of what Bush & Co did to what US law and international law say they are allowed to do.

I'm not going to pretend that I did more than just glance at snippets of the posts on this thread, but as a Gulf War veteran myself, from the 1st go-'round, I will tell you this: That everyone that I served with, down to the last man, KNEW that we would be back into the Persian Gulf before a decade had passed. Militarily speaking, you don't leave that many unresolved issues, and that many people hanging in the breeze, and expect things to just dry up and blow away. We (Gulf War 1 Veterans) just wish it hadn't been under this crop of ham-handed simpletons.
This is my 1st, last and only post on this extremely, personally, painful subject, peace, peoples.
C.
The above post is the voice of truth. As a civilian safe at home, I also knew that the end of Gulf War I was not going to be the end of US fighting in Iraq, because I knew that the political entities that had pushed for that war and had been pushing for broader, more direct US involvement in that region for a long time, had not accomplished what they wanted -- namely, to make the US military be a constant, ongoing presence there.

Now they have that, and the only question is, are we going to let them keep it going for the rest of our lives, or are we going to take their toy away from them again?

How, Corny? With a country that's not falling apart after enough bloodletting to taint the entire Mississipi?

When was the last time appeasement worked?

My point may have been lost in the thread, but it was exactly AGAINST the notion that a certain loss of life is acceptable because it's smaller than others.

In that case, I guess you oppose the NATO action in 1999 then? I mean...people died there to due to NATO bombs.

When was the last time appeasement worked?

That was appeasement how? Saddam was invading no one.

In that case, I guess you oppose the NATO action in 1999 then? I mean...people died there to due to NATO bombs.

Civilians?

Well, it sorta is a big deal.

Plus, I owe all the people that support this war as much for the CRAP I had to put up with during its run-up.

Well, it sorta is a shame that what you feel you owe us "supporters of the war" is pretty much an invalid argument.

Why capitalize CRAP? Are you emphasizing the fact that you're not using profanity or something?

Brazil has a self-defense clause, a clause in its constitution that forbids unprovoked aggression. WE are more responsible than YOU in this point.

And we have upheld international law by going after a nation that has flaunted it.

Don't start talking to us about responsibility.

Well, it sorta is a big deal.

Plus, I owe all the people that support this war as much for the CRAP I had to put up with during its run-up.

Bitter much? Are you sure you're not from Pennsylvania?

And people supported the efforts AGAINST the Germans in WWII and the Iraqis in Desert Storm.

Indeed and why? For the same damn reason why we are in Iraq. Freedom from Tyranny. Blow that one up your tailpipe squib.

And we have upheld international law by going after a nation that has flaunted it.

Don't start talking to us about responsibility.

You ignored international law by attacking unauthorized a nation that was still on trial for flaunting it.

When was the last time appeasement worked?

Who was Saddam invading or threatening this time around? What did he need to be appeased to keep him from doing? Oh, that's right -- nothing. He was doing nothing. He had nothing. He had nowhere to go. He was a threat to no one and nothing. So, there was no need to appease him, and nothing anyone was doing or not doing to/about him was appeasement. The worst he could do was take potshots and US and British fighter planes going over the no-fly zones, and nobody was trying to appease him about that.

Indeed and why? For the same damn reason why we are in Iraq. Freedom from Tyranny. Blow that one up your tailpipe squib.

What freedom? The freedom to complain about their 14-year old daughter being raped by soldiers?

Also, it was about INVASIONS, at that time, not freedom. And it's NOT about freedom now.

Bitter much? Are you sure you're not from Pennsylvania?

Whoa,

Gauthier, step off. I'm a Pennsylvanian and I'm nothing like this fool. Careful with the stereotypes.

Well, it sorta is a shame that what you feel you owe us "supporters of the war" is pretty much an invalid argument.

Why capitalize CRAP? Are you emphasizing the fact that you're not using profanity or something?

The only invalid argument was the one you made in thinking that you should invade Iraq.

And because I feel like it.

No, you were wrong in invading Iraq. There were no WMDs, no aggression, no reason to invade.

And you say that I act as if the soldiers want dead civilians. I don't.

They've threatened Kuwait on more than one occassion. BTW: that went against the cease-fire agreement signed by Hussein.

And we have upheld international law by going after a nation that has flaunted it.

Don't start talking to us about responsibility.

Indeed and why? For the same damn reason why we are in Iraq. Freedom from Tyranny. Blow that one up your tailpipe squib.
I don't even know what to say to crap like this. It's crazier and twistier and more nonsensical than anything in Alice in Wonderland. But you do say one true thing: There is, in fact, no point at all in talking to you about responsibility.

Whoa,

Gauthier, step off. I'm a Pennsylvanian and I'm nothing like this fool. Careful with the stereotypes.

That was a joke. Relax.

Whoa,

Gauthier, step off. I'm a Pennsylvanian and I'm nothing like this fool. Careful with the stereotypes.

Sure you are. You are also a soldier, a female, a male, and whatever else supports your shoddy excuses for points.

That was appeasement how? Saddam was invading no one.

I guess you missed all the deals that were made with Saddam. Many of which violated the UN Embargoes AND resolutions. Not surprising that you missed this. You are afterall a brainwashed twat.

They've threatened Kuwait on more than one occassion. BTW: that went against the cease-fire agreement signed by Hussein.

Then the UN should have decided what to do.

I guess you missed all the deals that were made with Saddam. Many of which violated the UN Embargoes AND resolutions. Not surprising that you missed this. You are afterall a brainwashed twat.

And the deals were invasions of countries now, to involve "appeasement"? You're grasping at straws to justify the worst bloodshed in the last twenty years!

Bitter much? Are you sure you're not from Pennsylvania?

Yes, and I'd have to lean on God, guns and disliking towards immigrants. :p

Civilians?

No demons. OF COURSE CIVILIANS!!! What do you think happens when bombs fall from planes?

Before you answer, think about why we were doing so.

You ignored international law by attacking unauthorized a nation that was still on trial for flaunting it.

It was authorized. It was legal in all accordances with International Law. Because you are totally inept at realizing this is probably because you've been fed utter shit.

Sure you are. You are also a soldier, a female, a male, and whatever else supports your shoddy excuses for points.

Dude. ARE YOU KIDDING ME. How are you even gonna even accuse me of all of this bullshit? You don't believe I'm a Pennsylvanian, I'll give you my life's story.

Born in Lutheran Medical Center in Brooklyn, NY. Moved to Philadelphia in 2002 due to the cost of living in NY. In 2005 I moved just outside Philly to a borough in Delaware County.

If you really need more proof, I'll give you my goddam address.

No demons. OF COURSE CIVILIANS!!! What do you think happens when bombs fall from planes?

Before you answer, think about why we were doing so.

Back then it was during my SATs. So I didn't read much news of the world. But that was bad too, yes.

It was authorized. It was legal in all accordances with International Law. Because you are totally inept at realizing this is probably because you've been fed utter shit.

The UN authorized MEASURES, not WAR!

Dude. ARE YOU KIDDING ME. How are you even gonna even accuse me of all of this bullshit? You don't believe I'm a Pennsylvanian, I'll give you my life's story.

Born in Lutheran Medical Center in Brooklyn, NY. Moved to Philadelphia in 2002 due to the cost of living in NY. In 2005 I moved just outside Philly to a borough in Delaware County.

If you really need more proof, I'll give you my goddam address.

And your bank account nunber please. *grabs pen*

Then the UN should have decided what to do.

last i checked it was the US and Iraq that signed the cease Fire.
Why involved the UN security council aka Russian veto council.

1) The justifications claimed do not in fact justify anything. This includes the claim that Saddam violated the cease fire agreement. Why? Because it was a UN agreement, not a US agreement, therefore the US had no legal standing to resume fighting without UN authorization, which the US most decidedly did not have. So that argument is BS.


Not accurate. The UN resolutions authorized its member nations to act in the event that the sanctions were violated. (Resolution 678) which was suspended by Resolution 687, which required Iraq to disarm, not only any WMD programs, but also the manufacture and import and use of numerous other military hardware as well (a fact usually overlooked by the amateur anti-war aficionado).

(For example, the aluminum tube import, widely derided as not being for centrifuges, but for a missile system, was STILL illegal under the sanctions, as import of weapons systems components is a clear violation.)

A violation of resolution 687 would then permit use of force under 678.

In Resolution 1441 the Security Council determined that Iraq was in violation of resolution 687.


That includes the cease-fire, which is why the planes that were shot at or targeted by radar were authorized to engage and destroy the launchers/radar.

Now, we can safely deduce that arguments which flow from an incorrect premise are by definition false, which brings us back to square one.

Then the UN should have decided what to do.

The original resolution was clear on what to do. just because you want to be an idiot about it does not make it so.

And your bank account nunber please. *grabs pen*

Haha. Nice.

last i checked it was the US and Iraq that signed the cease Fire.
Why involved the UN security council aka Russian veto council.

The inspections were done by the UN. The institution responsible for protecting international law and enforcing it is the UN. And so on.

Also, Russian veto council? Do you REALLY mean to ignore all the SEVERAL vetoes from the US in the case of sanctions against Israel when it bombed houses full of civilians in Palestine?

The original resolution was clear on what to do. just because you want to be an idiot about it does not make it so.

Then why was the UN against it so vehemently, genius?

Back then it was during my SATs. So I didn't read much news of the world. But that was bad too, yes.

Yea stopping a genocide is always a bad thing :rolleyes:

Yea stopping a genocide is always a bad thing :rolleyes:

You bombed Iraq, therefore killing civilians, to stop... the killing of civilians.

Coherent!

Then why was the UN against it so vehemently, genius?

Because the UN is full of people who are even less logically consistent than you are.

The UN authorized MEASURES, not WAR!

The UNITED STATES CONGRESS IS THE ONLY AUTHORITY ON THE US GOING TO WAR!!!

Is that fucking clear now or are you just going to brush this off as well?

Oh and by the way, if you had the mental processing power to interpret my first post correctly, you'd notice that I was against going into Iraq. I supported Afghanistan. NOT IRAQ.

You bombed Iraq, therefore killing civilians, to stop... the killing of civilians.

Coherent!

Hey, that's why we bombed the Germans, too.

Like I said, logically inconsistent.

Because the UN is full of people who are even less logically consistent than you are.

Because they dared not to rubber-stamp the rape of Iraq, right? The fact remains that Resolution 1441 did NOT expressly authorize the use of force.

The UNITED STATES CONGRESS IS THE ONLY AUTHORITY ON THE US GOING TO WAR!!!

Is that fucking clear now or are you just going to brush this off as well?


You're absolutely right. The only thing the UN can do to us is sanction us, and give its opinion on the course of action.

Hey, that's why we bombed the Germans, too.

Like I said, logically inconsistent.

And Japan to. As well as France and Bosnia as well.

The UNITED STATES CONGRESS IS THE ONLY AUTHORITY ON THE US GOING TO WAR!!!

Is that fucking clear now or are you just going to brush this off as well?

THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO RAPE THE COUNTRIES IT SEES FIT FOR NO REASON!

Is that fucking clear now or are you just going to brush this off as well?

And Japan to. As well as France and Bosnia as well.

You bombed them because they ATTACKED YOU. If it had anything to do with freedom, Sudan would be being bombed as we speak.

Because they dared not to rubber-stamp the rape of Iraq, right?

You just love to spit Nanking don't you? You really are a fool.

The fact remains that Resolution 1441 did NOT expressly authorize the use of force.

We didn't need experss permission from the UN. Their violations of the cease-fire was all we really needed to go in. I guess you do not want to acknowledge this.

THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO RAPE THE COUNTRIES IT SEES FIT FOR NO REASON!

Is that fucking clear now or are you just going to brush this off as well?

Really now? If what you say is true, and we did rape Iraq, then how the hell did we manage that if we have no right?

We obviously do.